It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

page: 169
164
<< 166  167  168    170  171  172 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Have you looked at it closely?
That might be strands of ice of differing colors and sizes, but the crazy thing is what happens where the texturization isn't applied.


I did, but i can't find anything that leads to a civilisation that has roads and houses. Do you have better pictures i can check?

[edit on 15/6/2007 by Cygnific]




posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
You've probably seen this already but this one by Voyager just blows me away...


Yes indeed, it is a very nice weird looking moon and maybe even has life according to NASA. So who knows what they might find one day.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cygnific


I did, but i can't find anything that leads to a civilisation that has roads and houses. Do you have better pictures i can check?

[edit on 15/6/2007 by Cygnific]


Yeah, but it depends on the settings of your video card and monitor, and your IP company, whether or not you can see what I see in the images. Zorg has explained this several times. Depending on how dark/light/contrasted/amount of colors/ etc.. . It can make a big difference between recognizing these things or not. He and I apparently have similar video card/monitor settings and IP companies that don't limit graphics, so we frequently can see the same anomalies.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Matyas, would you please quit obsessing over me and digging for information that’s none of your business with your cryptic BS posts and poorly conceived stinky bait? Otherwise I'm afraid I’m going to have file an unsolicited contact report and I *hate* doing paperwork.


I'm calling your bluff since there is no such report to my knowledge. Of course a private contractor can work for the gov. and call ones self an agent, but they do not have to abide by the same rules as a federal employee, one of which is to reveal what agency they are connected with when prompted.

And if you want to talk bait, propulsion always gets my attention. Any quick peek at my profile or posts will reveal this. Power systems, propulsion, theoretical physics, squares and triangles
, these are areas that garner my attention when I am on a public forum, so if you don't want me nosing around then don't be advertising!


P.S. When was the last time you contributed anything of substance to this thread?


And is the pot calling the kettle black? I am not taking that bait, because as you put it, "you don't need to know".



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
AD, I appreciate Matyas posts.


Thanks tex, and I've got your back if you ever need it!


I believe everyone brings something to the table, even A/D - once he gets past the "attack mode"!



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
I believe everyone brings something to the table, even A/D - once he gets past the "attack mode"!

I'll take that as compliment and power down the automatic weapons for now but I trust you’ll understand that my peripheral defenses remain up.

Re: Your previous post...

1. Apparently you’ve never had any OPSEC training.

2. I’m not claiming to be an agent. Again, since you apparently didn’t get it the first time, the MIB thing was a joke in response to Zorgon’s paranoia expressed to me in a private email.

3. I’m not advertising, Zorgon blew my “cover” here. I would have preferred to remain anonymous.

4. I have been involved in propulsion research with the Air Force for over 20 years now both as a military member and as an on-site defense contractor. I am also an advocate of NewSpace/alt.space efforts i.e. the privitaztion/commercialization of space access.

Any more questions?

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Access Denied]



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Here's a bigger view of the area, that you had asked for yesterday and i didn't produce because i was in too much neurological pain from going ballistic on the thread. (my own fault). Anyway, this is from the area of the "hairy" stuff, that shows the surrounding texture has been significantly changed from the "hairy" stuff. you can see the change is actually the result of a modification of the photo rather than a change in terrain as it is perfectly cut


thestargates.com...

here is the smaller, close-up of the border of the cut, so you can see
what i mean. the area not in the clear, hairy stuff, is a continuation of the clear/hairy stuff, but it is no longer clear. Rather it's covered with a texturization. If it had been just a continuation of the hairy stuff, it would be as clear as that area is, but it isn't.




Do, however, check out the bigger one here:

thestargates.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Originally posted by Access Denied





4. I have been involved in propulsion research with the Air Force for over 20 years now both as a military member and as an on-site defense contractor. I am also an advocate of NewSpace/alt.space efforts i.e. the privitaztion/commercialization of space access.

Any more questions?




Well that would certainly explain the disinformation you have been posting over the past few months.

On behalf of everyone on this thread I respectfullly request an apology from yourself to Undo. As Springer said your comment was vulgar, immature and not of ATS quality. They may allow you to conduct sexual harassment at your place of work but they don't here at ATS. Thank you for your understanding.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I also apologize for calling AD a coward. That's not only uncharacteristic for me, it's not ATS quality. I apologize, AD.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Undo, are you familiar with progressive JPEGs? It’s a special image format where as more data is received (like in a web browser when you first load a page) the picture gets more and more detail until it’s all completely downloaded. I think what you’re seeing here is something similar to that. The line between the sharp and fuzzy half represents the dividing line between two different frames (or scans) of image data being sent back to Earth, one of which didn’t completely make it i.e. there was some data loss (the finest detail at the end of the transmission). Make sense?



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

here is the smaller, close-up of the border of the cut, so you can see
what i mean. the area not in the clear, hairy stuff, is a continuation of the clear/hairy stuff, but it is no longer clear. Rather it's covered with a texturization. If it had been just a continuation of the hairy stuff, it would be as clear as that area is, but it isn't.





(reasonable explanation ...)

Hi-res photos of moons' surfaces are often mosaics of many single photographs. Because the spacecraft making the photos is typically at different distances from the moon (Europa in this case) for each part of the mosaic, the resulting resolution of surface features is different (and sometimes vastly different). This results in the effect you see in your image: A higher-res area bordering a lower-res area at the "cut line" of the mosaic.

An example for a Europa mosaic can be found here:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

You can clearly see the effect, especially on the right hand side of the image. Do you really think NASA added strange "hair texture" to some but not all areas in that mosaic?

(... and now back to wild speculation and NASA/science bashing ...)


Regards
yf



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Undo, are you familiar with progressive JPEGs? It’s a special image format where as more data is received (like in a web browser when you first load a page) the picture gets more and more detail until it’s all completely downloaded. I think what you’re seeing here is something similar to that. The line between the sharp and fuzzy half represents the dividing line between two different frames (or scans) of image data being sent back to Earth, one of which didn’t completely make it i.e. there was some data loss (the finest detail at the end of the transmission). Make sense?



It would if the background didn't also change from what appears to be a somewhat dark rocky terrain in the clear area, covered intermittently by those fibers, to almost entirely white and icy texture, in which the fibers appear to be coated with .... i suppose it's supposed to look like its coated with ice. but that doesn't make sense because in the clear area, it doesn't look like that at all.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
I also apologize for calling AD a coward. That's not only uncharacteristic for me, it's not ATS quality. I apologize, AD.

No problem, apology accepted. Sorry about the gender slur, not my style either. I say we chalk it up to the heat of the battle and resolve to be more excellent with each other.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
JohnLear you are def the man! In a good way, not in a new world order type of way lol!



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
Undo, are you familiar with progressive JPEGs?
If it was a case of progressive JPEGs then the image would the best quality on the top part, the first to be received, and the worst on the lower part, that would still be receiving the data.

I think this is a case of an image made with several strips, and some of those are not of the same quality as the others, just that.


Edit: Too late, yfxxx had already said the same thing.

[edit on 16/6/2007 by ArMaP]



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Well that would certainly explain the disinformation you have been posting over the past few months.


On behalf of everyone on this thread I respectfully request an apology from yourself to me for that baseless accusation. Thank you for your understanding.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Why is this image shown again and again here? Is there something spectacualr in that image for it to be repeatedly shown...?

Why are you referring to these features as "fibers"? Logically looking at the scale on that image one would conclude that the so called "fibers" are NOT fibers, but are naturally made features as seen on other moons and planets in our solar system.

About 120 years ago people thought that Mars had alien canals everywhere, this was due to a lack of understanding coupled with lower power/lack of instruments. Prominent astronomer, Percival Lowell even rallied behind this assertion...

[edit on 6/16/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

(... and now back to wild speculation and NASA/science bashing ...)




I'm not bashing NASA. I dunno why the pics are funky looking but they are.

I agree that the mosaic you posted is the same idea. Problem is, just like I mentioned in my post just above yours, the background color changes as well. You'd think if the difference was resolution, the overall background color would stay the same (i.e., white would still be white. black still black, etc.)



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

here is the smaller, close-up of the border of the cut, so you can see
what i mean. the area not in the clear, hairy stuff, is a continuation of the clear/hairy stuff, but it is no longer clear. Rather it's covered with a texturization. If it had been just a continuation of the hairy stuff, it would be as clear as that area is, but it isn't.







I have seen pics identical to this on Google earth in South America, identical to this pic almost, i still dont know what it was, but if it is Alien, it is visible in South America as well.. i will dig out the pic, but the resemblance is uncanny, it is amongst rocky and desert terrain.



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
I agree that the mosaic you posted is the same idea. Problem is, just like I mentioned in my post just above yours, the background color changes as well. You'd think if the difference was resolution, the overall background color would stay the same (i.e., white would still be white. black still black, etc.)


The absolute brightness would depend on the exposure time (and other settings) of the camera and the distance from which the photo was taken. These parameters influence the brightness in various ways. I'm not an expert in photography but I would actually expect that all parts of such a mosaic have more or less different absolute brightness.

Regards
yf



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 166  167  168    170  171  172 >>

log in

join